Aren’t ATG lists pretty pointless?

Yes.
But what would Classic Boxing do without them?

 

I often think of it as would fighter x from the 60's beat fighter y from the 90's based on all things being equal...ie with the improved diet, training methods, weigh ins the day before the fight etc

 

Sometimes I agree with you in terms of it being easy to compare peers.

However, boxing is still boxing. It's two men punching each other.

 

I agree. I made one because people would act like it’s the most ludicrous thing to have modern fighters in the top 10 here. So I sat down and actually thought about it and actually, if we’re discussing lists, Pac and Floyd has a very strong case for the top 10, top 5 even.

 

Tbh, like most lists, it's fairly arbitrary, and it's mostly just opinions.

I mean why is 1980-1989 any more useful to look at vrs 1986-1996? Some fighters have the misfortune of being 'semi-great' in 2 separate decades, and Decade by decade lists tend to penalise them.

I think that Rummy's recent experiment is one of the best i've seen at establishing any kind of concensus, and at least akcknowledged most of the downsides to lists over long periods or even by decade.

This content is protected

The thing I liked about this was the multiple opinions - even though it was failry opaque users on a forum, it at least evened out any kind of bias / tilting.

 

I love boxing! Lol.

 

IMHO, Rankings are tough, period! Staying within the ERA is not all that easy either. Even ranking currently active fighters is far from easy! It wouldn't be much fun if it was a simple task.

Bowe, Foreman, Holmes, Holyfield, Lewis, Tyson, to rattle off a quick 6, all were fighting at the same time. Try getting a unanimous opinion, from knowledgeable boxing people, on how to rank those 6 alone.

 

Yes, but so your thread. If you think about it — just talking about anything is pointless, really.

It's all in good fun.

You make a great point and I agree — for many people, it's about honoring the past and maintaining the history of the sport. Today's fighters are far better conditioned.

 

Yes. Things have changed in the landscape of boxing too drastically to even make fair comparisons.

 

Yeah. At their peak, Pac, Floyd, and Golovkin were some of the most supremely conditioned guys ever in sports. But it'd be impossible for them to fight as frequently as the old school guys did in a year. They'd be permanently damaged and retired within 3 years.

 

But we can look at some staggering numbers.

In 1942, SRR fought 14 times and like 4X from October to December.



Golovkin and Clenelo fighting each other 3X-4X in a year would leave one or both as complete shells after.